[Avodah] FRUITFUL QUESTION

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 12:03:18AM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: Now my question is why should it not have been an "apple"? With all
: of the above commentaries, it would
: seem quite logical that the fruit could very well have been an apple.

1- According to Tosafos (Shabbos 88a "piryo"), the comparison between
Yisrael and and "ketapuach be'atzei haya'ar" is to an "esrog" tree. R'
Chama brR' Chanina says the comparison is because the tapuach's leaves
grow /after/ the fruit. And R' Tam notes that this isn't true of apples,
but is true of esrogim.

R' Tam includes in his analysis "reiach apekha ketapuchim" (Shir
haShirim 6).

I am guessing this is related to the botanical observation made in
Sukkah says, "'peri eitz hadar' -- ha-dar be'ilano mishanah leshanah",
the esrog grows on the tree from one year to the next. A 2nd year esrog,
ready to pick, predates the leaves around it.

As for the smell of the holy "tapuach" orchard... It would be easier to
explain as applying to an esrog orchard. Because esrogim, "ta'am eitzo
upiryo shaveh" the tree and the fruit taste alike. Therefore, brushing
up against the trees would leave you with a pleasant esrog smell. (Which
I can attest to from experience.)

And so "reiach beni kereiach hasadeh", understood midrashically, refers
to the fact that like an esrog orchard, one who learns Torah and wanders
through the chaqal tapuchin qadishin is left with the fragrant smell of
the "esrogim" of his Torah. True Torah study affects not only intellect,
but character.

So it's quite likely that this too is an esrog. Which is one of the
opinions in the gemara.

2- I do not think we assume that Adam's gan eden is the same "place"
as the one in / that is olam haba. Adam's gan eden is hard to describe
as an orchard of any one particular kind of fruit.

3- The identification of the eitz hadaas with an apple is via the french
pomme, which means both apple and also could be generic fruit. Something
Modern Hebrew borrowed to tapuach when they named "tapuach adamah" and
"tapuz" (condensed from "tapuach zahav"). In King James English, the
same was true of "apple". The English bible simply used a word that in
those days meant "fruit", not the Malus domestica in particular.

The XIans have a similar confusion due to the shift in meaning of the
word "kill". In those days "kill" meant what we now call murder, and
"slay" was the more generic term. "Thou shalt not kill" was originally an
accurate translation of "lo sirtzach", referring only to unlawful killing.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
micha at aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning